So you think you want to be a Go referee? Here are a few very recent cases in international tournaments where the referees were called. In each case, there was also a ruling. How would you have ruled?

Case 1
Playing in an international match, a player put a captured stone into her opponent’s bowl, which is a common practice in games based on area counting. But in this case, the game was played in Korea and the rules used are territory based. At the end of the game, this player lost by 0.5 point, even though everyone knew she had won by 0.5. The player requested replaying and recounting, her opponent refused. How would you rule?

Case 2
A player pressed the clock before removing a whole bunch of captured stones from the board. The opponent protested. How would you rule?

Case 3
A player uses a medicated cream to keep herself refreshed (say, the “Tiger Bond”), which has a strong scent but is commonly used in some countries. Her opponent finds the smell to be very annoying. How do you rule when a protest is lodged? If you rule that the medication should be removed, how do you handle the time taken to remove the medication? And what if the medication is needed for injury (for example scented, medicated, tapes used for muscle cramps); would you rule differently?

Case 4
In a lopsided international match, the stronger player uses intimidation to try to get her opponent to resign. At first, she played loud and fast, slapping stones onto the board immediately after each of her opponent’s move; then she started complaining to spectators, “why hasn’t my opponent resigned”! When the referee interceded and warned her, the talking stopped, but the rude playing continued. Her opponent protested, the strong player insisted she did nothing wrong. How would you rule?

Nice quiz, but case 1 seems to artificially remove some difficulty by saying "everyone knew". If you give the actual information that the ref had to go on, you would have given readers an even tougher choice.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

At least the first one depends on the actual ruleset in place.

Case 1
If the endgame state or a way to restore it is available I'd count the game as if it had been played correctly.

Case 2
I think the rule is to stop the clock for multi stone captures. I'd give the player who compained a certain timebonus to compensate for the loss of time due to capture during his time and remind the player who made the mistake of the rule.

Case 3
Depends on the strength of the smell, but probably allow it.

Case 4
One would like to tell the player to player normally from now on. This would result in the player having three choices:
1) Directly appeal to a higher referee which is unlikely
2) Follow the order
3) Still play loudly
Correct behavior for the player would be 1 or 2. But three is problematic since now the player has shown disrespect of the referee, and the ruling has to be enforced because else the referee loses authority. I think firmly insisting that the player decides to either comply with the order, or instantly appeal the decision should work. But this depends on how much authority a referee has and I don't have enough experience with international go tournaments to know that. It also depends on whether the rules mandate sportsmanship, or not.

_________________
Sanity is for the weak.

-This is what I have to say based on what I know, and how I would rule in each instance.

1. A captured stone should be placed with the other captured stones because it makes it easier to keep count in territorial based games. However, regardless of where the captured stone was placed, it is still captured and therefore she should have won based on the information provided.

2. The player should have removed the stones, and time should be deducted from their clock for such an act. This player should also be warned not to do it again. Also, a time stoppage could work here for large multi-stone captures.

3. Creams should be applied before the game begins out of politeness to the opponent. However, if it occurs during the match, there is nothing illegal about it. If the scent is in fact too strong, a small break in the game should take place, and ask the player to try and make it through the game without applying any more.

4. Playing stones loudly is, as far as I know, not against any rule stated in Go. It is impolite, but not illegal. Talking to spectators should indeed get the player warned, but that would be the only issue.

_________________
Slava Ukraini!

Case 1: I don't think it's fair to impose the burden of remembering the entire game on the person who did not screw up the capturing process. What if they replay the game to a certain point but then can't agree which area they played next? Or what if the player who believes she should have won cannot remember her opponents exact move, and the person who initially objected to replaying the game claims to not remember it either. How can you tell if he's lying? So, I would count the game as it was originally scored.
Note: If this occurred in a pro game and there was an official person keeping track of each players' moves, my answer might change.

Case 2: I do believe this is allowed in most tournaments, so I would explain this to the objecting player and allow it.

Case 3: Unless the opponent was having an allergic reaction to the product, I would allow the player to keep it on.

Case 4: I see nothing wrong with slamming your stone onto the board, however quickly after your opponent's move as you want. What if she stopped slamming her stone, but still played incredibly quickly? Would her opponent complain about that, too? As long as she ceased speaking to spectators, I would let her play her moves however she wants.

_________________
We don't know who we are; we don't know where we are.
Each of us woke up one moment and here we were in the darkness.
We're nameless things with no memory; no knowledge of what went before,
No understanding of what is now, no knowledge of what will be.

Case 1 is quite tough, and if I recall correctly caused quite a stir recently. I believe that the original result should be kept, as players play different moves based on who is ahead and that the person who lost was the one who made the mistake.

Case 2 definitely depends on rules. Personally I like being able to pause (not press, as that makes the opponent lose time) the clock for larger captures.

Case 3 and 4 I agree with Dusk Eagle.

Years ago, when I got training to be a contract bridge director, I was taught always to give rulings from the book (even if you know the rules cold).

From what I hear, the Korean rules have been revised. However, an English version of the 1992 rules is online at the Yenching University web site: http://go.yenching.edu.hk/ . I will use those rules.

I find these pertinent rules.

"Article 7. Survival of stones
"Any stone or group of stones with a liberty will remain on the board until the game has finished, while stones without a liberty must be removed immediately."

"Article 10. Capture
"If the placement of a stone removes a group's last liberty, this group must be immediately taken from the board."

"Article 17. Kyega (counting the Score)
"The dead stones are removed and added to prisoners. All the prisoners are used to fill the opponents territory to make counting quicker. This is called Kyega. At this point the remaining empty intersections are counted as the opponents scores. If there are prisoners remaining when all the territory is filled, the score is negative."

"Article 18. Detemining the Result
"After Kyega, the winner is the player who has the higher score. If the scores are equal, the game is a draw. If it is an even game, Dum (Komi in Japanese) is added to white. Any disagreement must be taken up at this point."

Obviously, the customary practice is for the player who captures a stone to keep it with her (other) prisoners, and not return it to the opponent's bowl. However, Articles 7 and 10 do not specify that. They simply say that captured stones should be removed from the board. Therefore, the player did not commit an infraction of the rules by placing the prisoner in her opponent's bowl. Article 17 states that the prisoners are used to fill in the opponent's territory. Therefore, that prisoner should have been placed in the opponent's territory to count the score.

Another thing I was taught was that, when called to make a ruling, the first thing to do is to ascertain what happened, if possible. Here, everyone agrees what happened.

Article 17 was not followed, because not all of the prisoners had been placed inside territory for counting. I would have ruled that a stone should be taken from the opponent's bowl, placed in his or her territory, and the game recounted, in accordance with Article 17.



Look it up in the book.



This is the kind of ruling on the proprieties of the game that may not be specified in the rules. Often the TD is given great discretion. I would refer the question to the head TD. If, perchance, I were the head TD, and I did not know what to do, based upon culture and sensibilities, I would consult with the tournament organizers and top players.



I would rule that she was rude. This is the kind of thing that should be referred to the organization to which she belongs. If the rules gave me the authority, I would expel her from the tournament. (I did warn her.)

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

Very good point: she in effect "hid" one of her captured stones from the opponent, deceiving him into thinking he was ahead when he was actually behind. If this is ruled as acceptable, than never again will I leave my captured stones in my bowl lid during a tournament.

_________________
We don't know who we are; we don't know where we are.
Each of us woke up one moment and here we were in the darkness.
We're nameless things with no memory; no knowledge of what went before,
No understanding of what is now, no knowledge of what will be.

Do you think that the opponent did not notice?

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

It wouldn't surprise me if the opponent didn't (I've made much more embarrassing mistakes) :p

I don't know much about pro habits, but I'd not consider it to be impossible for the players to make that mistake since Chinese scoring is pretty common.

Players should know in which ruleset they play. If they don't inform themselves and play according to a different ruleset, it's their fault.
The game and the outcome stands.




Out of general deterrence, you can't warn him for that, otherwise it should be concluded that everyone can once in a game remove a big capture AFTER pressing the clock.
The player should suffer a average timeloss according to the capture.




Variation a) I wouldn't assume the player using the cream did this on purpose to annoy his or her opponent, so I would ask the opponent, if it's okay with him to stop the clocks to let the player remove the cream (which I would require out of fair-play). If it's not, the game continues.
Variation b) Depends on the medical necessity. If it's major, the opponent has to cope with it, in minor cases it would be the same as in variation a).




What is rude playing? Loud and fast? There is nothing wrong with slapping the stones on the board, it might be premature but not rude.
But, well I had awarded the win to the opponent the moment the stronger player complainted about his play to spectators. Fair-play or play another game.



Well, now let's see what others would have done =D

_________________
My "guide" to become stronger in Go

Well, Helel, based on your answer, you would have been instantly disqualified as referee.

1 - Your ruling has no base in ANY of the rulebooks.
2 - Same as 1.
3 - But internet playing is not an option for INTERNATIONAL TOURNAMENTS. Did you forget your role as the referee? ^^
4 - Same as 2.

Here what I would do.


There is only one way I would rule in favor of the player who "lost". That is if she complains and calls for a referee before agreeing on the final score. In that case I would investigate further and find out what happened. I guess I will suggest they play a new game. they can either agree and play another game, or appeal.
If both players have already agreed on the score It will be and remain the final result.
If it was one of the spectators pointing out the mistake, the spectator should be removed from the playing area and the "wrong" result remains valid. (unfortunate case)

I know a guy who forgot to add komi to his score, he only realized after 5 min when the result had already been agreed on. the agreed result of white losing remained valid.



I'm assuming the "bunch" of stones is over the limit for being allowed to stop the clock.
I would issue a warning to the player and inform him I will give a time penalty if it happens again.



I would say they will just have to continue. you can't stop for evey fart
If the smell is so bad others start complaining as well I guess I will give the smelly player a 10 min break to clean up a bit. I would not give any (time) penalty for this.


I would not allow talking to the spectators. if the referee is called I would issue a warning and tell that if it happens again I would give a time penalty. playing loudly and fast is allowed and I would not do anything about that.

_________________
Laurens
Go school: freegame's Teaching School
Author of: The Next Move a book for 15-3kyu players.

Helel, I can't say I would have expected your answers to be any different .

_________________
We don't know who we are; we don't know where we are.
Each of us woke up one moment and here we were in the darkness.
We're nameless things with no memory; no knowledge of what went before,
No understanding of what is now, no knowledge of what will be.

Notes on the rude player (case 4):

The second ruling, OC, depends upon the first. What did the referee warn the player about?

Also, I would have stayed and watched after my first warning. (Calls for the referee are not very frequent at go tournaments. )

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

I don't think I will ever be a go referee, but I'd like to have a go just for fun.

1) If there is a reasonable way for replay and recount it should be done. If not, if there is other overwhelming evidence that one stone was misplaced, it should be corrected. If neither, the result should stand.

2) I think capture should be completed before pressing the clock. The only other option is stopping the clock for both players, if stipulated by the rules.

3) The cream should be allowed

4) Slapping stones and playing quickly should be allowed.

_________________
Offending ad removed

No intents to be a refferee, but my 2 cents:

1. If the player who put the stone in the bowl agrees that s/he did that, it should be regarded as a prisoner when counting.
If it was pointed out right when s/he did it and there are witnesses and/or s/he agrees it should be regarded as a prisoner when counting.
If it can be deducted from the position at the time where the complaint was made that there are too few prisoners for one side, and the player with appearantly too few prisoners have no reasonable explanation it should be regarded as a prisoner when counting.
In most other cases that prisoner should not be regarded as one when counting.

2. In practice, I believe that most players would just press the clock back and say "pick up the stones first!", I think that would be the right thing to do (at least with byo-yomi). If the opponent doesn't do this and lose on time it's his/her own fault. With Canadian overtime, I'd say add some "reasonable" time (depending on settings) to his clock, something like add up to full starting time plus 10% of that time.
Edit: Maybe add "at least the time lost" is better, be it twise the time or three times the time as long as both agrees it is longer or the same.

3. A player could stop taking a shower one week before the tournament. Some people have bad breath. Some people like garlic, some hate the smell from people who have eaten it. Where to draw the line here?
I think rubbing a skunk to your face mostly disturbs your own playing, but if a player maybe because of reduced smelling capabilities "just smells bad" according to at least the referee, the opponent and maybe one or more others s/he should be asked to wash it off. It goes into absurdity though. What if someone has eaten detritus for the last week, and smells it?

4. Slamming OK, fast play OK, talking to spectators not OK.
In theory I'd think warning first time "if you do this again you lose" and forfeit second time, but in practice maybe 1. Don't do this 2. You'll lose if you do it again 3. Forfeit, but I'm to soft sometimes...

/Mats

_________________
mohsart - games & books
http://spel.mohsart.se/

I agree with Helel, referees should be severe. If people are not able to play like civilized human beings, I would go even further and disqualify both of the players, also the complaining one. I would even ban their KGS, IGS, DGS and OGS accounts for at least one month

_________________
If you say no, Elwood and I will come here for breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day of the week.

About case 4: assuming that we are playing under EGF rules, this kind of play is most definitely NOT allowed.

Not only is this player guilty of "improper making of moves" which is not allowed per 3.2.3, her behaviour is also clearly unsportsmanlike. If my earlier warning included this information, then I would probably give a second warning now, which means: game loss by forfeit. If I forgot to include that in my earlier warning, then I would now make very clear that this fast stone slapping is not allowed and will lead to a second warning - then I would hang around the board for a while, just in case.

_________________
My name is Gijs, from Utrecht, NL.

When in doubt, play the most aggressive move

This always depends so much on the actual rules in force that each case you present here is incomplete. There are also many important details missing.



It depends on the rule set and further details: when did the player protest? Many rule sets have a specific instant where the players confirm the result; after both have confirmed, the result cannot be changed. This also implies that it can be changed before that.



Again, it depends on the rules. Many rule sets have a provision that the clock may be stopped for the removal of more than e.g. 3 stones. Of course, simply pressing the clock before finishing the move is not right. I would like to restore the opponent's time and give him some extra time, if the rules in force allow this kind of decision.



I think that not having any strong smell is part of proper attire. However, it is a judgement call, and a question of whether the rules in force demand proper attire.



There is never an obligation to resign. Each player has the right to play to the end. Of course, the player also has the right to slap stones as fast and loud as he wishes, as long as the board position and other players are not disturbed. The exact action taken in such a case depends on an assessment of the situation and what instruments are given to the referee by the rules. I might be inclined to give a second warning with the note that the game can be ruled forfeit by the offending player.

_________________
A good system naturally covers all corner cases without further effort.